D&D 5E Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?

[Shasarak]

I dunno, they have 1 hp left, luckily, that last hit didn't drop them.

Well after surviving 20d6 fall damage, I know that they are 'feeling' lucky.

 

[Shasarak]

"AD&D had some serious issues trying to challenge name level characters"

I imagine that was the last thing said to Gygax before he wrote Tomb of Horrors.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it was a rationalization done after the fact because AD&D had some serious issues trying to challenge name level characters.

Let's see. I provided game rules and reasoning from the book. You have provided.........nothing. You're going to need to back up that statement with a quote from Gygax if you want it to be taken seriously. Until then, you've just made an unsubstantiated claim in an effort to defeat the rule book.

Funny how when you look at the spells that got taken off the table, they are all the high powered stuff by and large. Oh, and, somehow my God can't reach me if I step into another plane and I can't get my high level healing spells back. Funny that.

Those rules make a lot of sense. If you don't want t be affected, don't go to another plane. Nobody is forcing you.

Yet, anything traveling to the Prime Material plane had none of its abilities affected whatsoever.

What is it about prime that you aren't understanding?

Awfully convenient.

And well reasoned.

 

[Hussar]

Let's see. I provided game rules and reasoning from the book. You have provided.........nothing. You're going to need to back up that statement with a quote from Gygax if you want it to be taken seriously. Until then, you've just made an unsubstantiated claim in an effort to defeat the rule book.



Those rules make a lot of sense. If you don't want t be affected, don't go to another plane. Nobody is forcing you.



What is it about prime that you aren't understanding?



And well reasoned.

Yeah. See, there's the trick isn't it? You can justify just about anything you like. No different than a DM doing exactly the same thing to use a Tarassque against the party.

As far as the rules making sense, how do you figure? What in-game justification is there that my sword loses exactly two plusses when taken off the Prime? I know what happens, true, but, there is no reason why. It just is. At least, there's zero in-game reason why. Out of game, there's a pretty darn good reason why - AD&D doesn't challenge high level characters well. So, to inflate the difficulty, we'll strip down their bonuses so that they are challenged again. Occam's razor does apply.

I mean, if it's simply traveling off the Prime that costs pluses, then why doesn't it happen when I go Ethereal or Astral? IIRC, it doesn't happen in the elemental planes either. Only the outer planes. Why does my Holy Avenger become +3 when I travel to the home plane of my diety? You'd think that it would get better wouldn't it?

Hey, why don't I lose pluses when I go to Ravenloft then? Oh, right... reasons.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah. See, there's the trick isn't it? You can justify just about anything you like. No different than a DM doing exactly the same thing to use a Tarassque against the party.

You still need to PROVE your claim. I've proven mine. Anyone can make an unsubstantiated "justification" claim. Can you back yours up?

As far as the rules making sense, how do you figure? What in-game justification is there that my sword loses exactly two plusses when taken off the Prime?

You have to travel through two planes to get to the outer planes.

I know what happens, true, but, there is no reason why.

And that's provably false. It gives you the reason, so therefore it's not possible for your claim that there is no reason to be correct.

I mean, if it's simply traveling off the Prime that costs pluses, then why doesn't it happen when I go Ethereal or Astral?

It does.

"Any magic items can go into the Astral Plane, but most will become non-magical thereon, or on any planes removed from the Prime Material Plane. Those which contain spells which you determine will function on any given plane will function on that plane. Armor and weapons which are +3 or better might also function on other planes..." 1e DMG

"Certain magic weapons will remain magical in either of these planes, but some will not, so be prepared for the worst." 1e PHB

 

[Hussar]

You still need to PROVE your claim. I've proven mine. Anyone can make an unsubstantiated "justification" claim. Can you back yours up?



You have to travel through two planes to get to the outer planes.



And that's provably false. It gives you the reason, so therefore it's not possible for your claim that there is no reason to be correct.



It does.

"Any magic items can go into the Astral Plane, but most will become non-magical thereon, or on any planes removed from the Prime Material Plane. Those which contain spells which you determine will function on any given plane will function on that plane. Armor and weapons which are +3 or better might also function on other planes..." 1e DMG

"Certain magic weapons will remain magical in either of these planes, but some will not, so be prepared for the worst." 1e PHB

Really? What reason is that? You've told me what happens, but, not why.

All I know is that we lose two plusses. What in game reason is there for that? Why did my sword become non-magical, but, my ring of Fire Resistance works perfectly well?

Oh, right. Magic.

Heh. Note the "You" in your DMG quote. Who is the "you" in that statement? The player or the DM? Since this cannot be done by a "omnipotent outsider" according to [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s argument, who is the "you"?

Remember, this is a sidebar to the actual argument that in a role playing game, everything in the game must follow logically from the game itself. The game provides the rules of the universe. So, if the "You" in your quote is the DM, then, by [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s argument, AD&D isn't actually a roleplaying game. Well, I suppose that's at least consistent, he did say that earlier.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

RAW contradicts that statement.

The rules from 4E contradict it, and the part of 5E which contradicts it is just a holdover from 4E. There was definitely a point between 3.5 and 4E, where they forgot that they were trying to make an RPG and that meta-gaming was bad.

You can try to role-play this point in 5E, and they did specifically include a line about how different DMs describe damage differently in order to facilitate role-playing it, but you can't really do it unless your DM bothers to opt into that explanation. By default, 5E assumes that people care more about killing monsters than about role-playing, and this is one of the many failures of 5E as an RPG.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

5e RAW absolutely allows that. No dice come into play unless the outcome is uncertain, and only the DM determines uncertainty, not the other rules.

In some cases, the DM determines certainty, because the DM sets the DC for various tasks. If the DM honestly ascertains that the DC for a given task would be 0, then nobody with a modifer of -1 or greater can possibly fail, so success is certain (as it would be certain for a DC of 12, if the character had a bonus of +11 or greater).

Any DM who says that a fall of 200 feet onto a flat surface without other mitigating factors is certain to kill a character with 120+ HP is a DM who does not know the definition of certainty. Words have meaning, and those meanings remain true regardless of your obvious inability to comprehend them.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules from 4E contradict it, and the part of 5E which contradicts it is just a holdover from 4E. There was definitely a point between 3.5 and 4E, where they forgot that they were trying to make an RPG and that meta-gaming was bad.

You can try to role-play this point in 5E, and they did specifically include a line about how different DMs describe damage differently in order to facilitate role-playing it, but you can't really do it unless your DM bothers to opt into that explanation. By default, 5E assumes that people care more about killing monsters than about role-playing, and this is one of the many failures of 5E as an RPG.

It still contradicts your claim. Even as far back as 1e, most of the damage was non-physical, which means invisible. A bruise for 10 out of 100 hit points is the same as a bruise for 1 out of 10 hit points. 10% is 10%. Heck, Gygax gave an example of how many hit points were meat. He listed the meat hit point going up to a max of 23 at 7th level. That meant a fighter with 60 hit points at 7th level had 37 non-meat hit points to lose. Good luck seeing those.

 

[Maxperson]

In some cases, the DM determines certainty, because the DM sets the DC for various tasks. If the DM honestly ascertains that the DC for a given task would be 0, then nobody with a modifer of -1 or greater can possibly fail, so success is certain (as it would be certain for a DC of 12, if the character had a bonus of +11 or greater).

Any DM who says that a fall of 200 feet onto a flat surface without other mitigating factors is certain to kill a character with 120+ HP is a DM who does not know the definition of certainty. Words have meaning, and those meanings remain true regardless of your obvious inability to comprehend them.

As the DM, I can just plain decide if you would auto succeed or auto fail. If I do that, it supersedes any die rolling the game calls for. This is RAW. There is no limitation that keeps it to "some cases."